At 06:33 AM 3/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No. But that condition is essentially impossible. There is *never* a
consistent faction of that size in a majoritarian democracy, indeed,
I think I wrote, there is no faction of *any* size of which this is
true, since
Dear Abd-ul Rahman,
you wrote:
And the very core of my objection is that the minority is not a
fixed group, such that it is deprived by not getting its way.
Raphfrk just gave us a very prominent example that this indeed can
happen. So I don't understand you still insist that such a thing was
At 11:06 AM 3/6/2007, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Abd-ul Rahman,
you wrote:
And the very core of my objection is that the minority is not a
fixed group, such that it is deprived by not getting its way.
Raphfrk just gave us a very prominent example that this indeed can
happen. So I don't
On Mar 6, 2007, at 8:56 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:50 PM 3/5/2007, Juho wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:02 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
How, indeed, it occurs to me to ask, are we to know who got their
way in a secret ballot system? The presumption might be that the
way was gotten by a
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:33 AM 3/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No. But that condition is essentially impossible. There is *never* a
consistent faction of that size in a majoritarian democracy, indeed,
I think I wrote, there is no faction of
At 04:32 PM 3/6/2007, Juho wrote:
My intention was to point out also that when the carry over points
are tied to the parties that doesn't yet reveal who voted those parties.
What I noted was that a political party is not an individual member
of the society. By giving carry over points to
At 01:22 PM 3/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it does highlight the problems of giving all the power to the
majority. It only works if there is some factional flexibility.
Majority rule can be conceived of in two ways. One is that there is
some identified group of people who vote
Dear Abd ul-Rahman,
replying to Juho, you wrote:
At 03:29 PM 3/4/2007, Juho wrote:
Single winner at its
purest is just electing one of a number of candidates, giving no
consideration to if it was the same voters that last time got their
way through. Basic single winner methods maybe have
Dear Abd-ul Rahman,
you wrote:
If the system does not allow majority rule, my
experience as well as theory indicate that the result is not
democracy, but oligarchy, whenever the status quo favors a minority.
What theory tells you that Random Ballot results in oligarchy? Oligarchy
means a
On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:02 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
How, indeed, it occurs to me to ask, are we to know who got their
way in a secret ballot system? The presumption might be that the
way was gotten by a party.
It would be just my luck that by the time I wised up and became a
Republican,
At 06:00 AM 3/5/2007, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Do you mean to say that the will of a consistent faction of 49% of the
electorate, who will never get their way under a majoritarian system,
is noise??
No. But that condition is essentially impossible. There is *never* a
consistent faction of that size
At 06:24 AM 3/5/2007, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Majority rule does not refer to a specific group of people, the
majority who rule over others who have no power.
Yes it does. It refers to that specific group who decides to use the
system to get their will regardless of what the rest wants. That
At 04:50 PM 3/5/2007, Juho wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:02 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
How, indeed, it occurs to me to ask, are we to know who got their
way in a secret ballot system? The presumption might be that the
way was gotten by a party.
It would be just my luck that by the time I wised
On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:40 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
[sorry if this comes twice, but it didn't seem to get thru the
first time]
Dear folks,
some clarification because in recent posts democracy and majority rule
were confused quite often...
In a dictatorial system, almost all people have no
At 03:29 PM 3/4/2007, Juho wrote:
Single winner at its
purest is just electing one of a number of candidates, giving no
consideration to if it was the same voters that last time got their
way through. Basic single winner methods maybe have worse utility
than ones that take distribute the power
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sorry if this comes twice, but it didn't seem to get thru the first time]
Dear folks,
some clarification because in recent posts democracy and majority rule
were confused quite often...
In a dictatorial system, almost all people have no power.
In a
At 05:40 AM 3/2/2007, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
some clarification because in recent posts democracy and majority rule
were confused quite often...
Well, I don't think I personally confuse them, but I might use
language loosely sometimes.
In a dictatorial system, almost all people have no power.
I
17 matches
Mail list logo
